Dayton Agreement
The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Agreement, Dayton Accords, Paris Protocol or Dayton-Paris Agreement, is the peace agreement reached at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio in November 1995, and formally signed in Paris on December 14, 1995. These accords put an end to the three and a half year long war in Bosnia, one of the armed conflicts in the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. Some articles erroneously refer to the agreement as the Treaty of Dayton. Though the basic concepts of the Dayton Agreement began to appear in international talks since 1992,Munich All Over Again?, TIME Magazine, August 31, 1992 the negotiations were initiated following the unsuccessful previous peace efforts and arrangements, the August 1995 Croatian military Operation Storm and its aftermath, the government military offensive against the Republika Srpska, in concert with NATO's Operation Deliberate Force. During September and October 1995, many of the world powers (especially the USA and Russia), gathered in the Contact Group, applied intense pressure to the leaders of the three sides to attend the negotiations in Dayton, Ohio. The conference took place from November 1 to November 21, 1995. The main participants from the region were Serbian President Slobodan Milošević (representing the Bosnian Serb interests due to absence of Karadžić), Croatian President Franjo Tuđman, and Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović with Bosnian Foreign Minister Muhamed "Mo" Sacirbey. The peace conference was led by U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and negotiator Richard Holbrooke with two Co-Chairmen in the form of EU Special Representative Carl Bildt and the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov. A key participant in the US delegation was General Wesley Clark (later to become NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) in 1997). The UK military representative was Col Arundell David Leakey (later to become Commander of EUFOR in 2005). The Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) served as legal counsel to the Bosnian Government delegation during the negotiations. The secure site was chosen in a bid to curb the participants' ability to negotiate in the media rather than at the bargaining table. After having been initiated in Dayton, Ohio on November 21, 1995 the full and formal agreement was signed in Paris, France, on December 14, 1995 also by French President Jacques Chirac, U.S. President Bill Clinton, UK Prime Minister John Major, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. The present political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its structure of government were agreed upon as part the constitution that makes up Annex 4 of the General Framework Agreement concluded at Dayton. A key component of this was the delineation of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line, to which many of the tasks listed in the Annexes referred. The agreement mandated a wide range of international organizations to monitor, oversee, and implement components of the agreement. The NATO-led IFOR (Implementation Force) was responsible for implementing military aspects of the agreement and deployed on the 20th December 1995, taking over the forces of the UNPROFOR. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina On 13 October 1997, the Croatian 1861 Law Party and the Bosnia-Herzegovina 1861 Law Party requested the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to annul several decisions and to confirm one decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, more importantly, to review the constitutionality of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, since they alleged that the agreement violated the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a way that it undermined the integrity of the state and that it may cause the dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court reached the conclusion that it is not competent to decide the disputes in regards to the mentioned decisions, since the applicants were not subjects that were identified in Article VI.3 (a) of the Constitution, in regard to those who can refer disputes to the Court. The Court also rejected the other request stating: This was one of the early cases in which the Court had to deal with the question of the legal nature of the Constitution. By making the remark in the manner of obiter dictum concerning the Annex IV (the Constitution) and the rest of the peace agreement, the Court actually "established the ground for legal unity"Vehabović, Faris (2006). Odnos Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine i Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda. Sarajevo: ACIPS, 24. ISBN 9958-9187-0-6 of the entire peace agreement, which further implied that all the annexes are in the hierarchical equality. In later decisions the Court confirmed this by using other annexes of the peace agreement as a direct base for the analysis and not only in the context of systematic interpretation of the Annex IV. However, since the Court rejected the presented request of the appellants, it did not go into details concerning the controversial questions of the legality of the process in which the new Constitution (Annex IV) came to power, and replaced the former Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Territorial changes Before the Dayton agreement Bosnian Serbs controlled about 46 % of BiH (23687 km2), Bosnian Croats 25% (12937 km2) and Bosnian Bosniaks 28% (14505 km2). Control of Republika Srpska *About 89.5%(22059 km2) was under control of Bosnian Serbs *About 9% (2117 km2) of today's territories of Republika Srpska was controlled by Bosnian Croat forces; mainly in municipalities of Mrkonjić grad, Šipovo, Ribnik, Petrovac, Istočni Drvar, Jezero, Kupres (RS) and part of Banja Luka municipality *About 1.5% (350 km2) of today's territories of RS was controlled by Bosnian Muslim forces; mainly some villages in Ozren (Doboj and Petrovo municipalities), and western Bosnia (Krupa, and parts of Novi and Oštra Luka municipalities) Control of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina *About 41% (10720 km2) of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was under Bosnian Croat control *About 53% (13955 km2) of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was under Bosnian Bosniak control *About 6%(1435 km2) was under control of Bosnian Serbs Cantons Hercegbosanski canton: *Was almost completely under control of Bosnian Croats (4924 km2)Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina *Bosnian Bosniaks controlled some points east of Kupres (10 km2) Unsko-sanski canton: *Was almost completely under control of Bosnian Bosniaks (3925 km2) *Bosnian Croats controlled some mountain passes on the southern parts of Bosanski Petrovac and Bihać municipalities (200 km2) Zapadnohercegovački canton: *was completely under Bosnian Croat control (1362 km2) Hercegovačko-neretvanski canton: *was divided, more than half was under Bosnian Croat control (2525 km2) *northern and central parts were under Bosnian Bosniak control (1666 km2) *eastern mountains where under Bosnian Serb control (210 km2) Središnjobosanski canton: *was divided, a bit more than a third was under Bosnian Croat control (1099 km2) *rest was under control of Bosnian Bosniaks (2090 km2) Zeničko-dobojski canton: *was largely under Bosnian Bosniak control (2843 km2) *there were some small enclaves like Žepče, Usora, Daštansko under Bosniak Croat control (400 km2) *eastern mountains were under Bosnian Serb control (100 km2) Tuzlanski canton: *was largely under Bosnian Bosniak control (2544 km2) *there were some villages in Gradačac municipality under Bosnian Croat control (5 km2) *and some villages in Doboj and Gračanica municipalities under Bosnian Serb control (100 km2) Posavski canton: *was mostly under Bosnian Croat control (205 km2) *Bosnian Serbs controlled Odžak and parts of Domaljevac municipalities (120 km2) Podrinjski canton: *was mostly under Bosnian Bosniak control (405 km2) *Bosnian Serbs controlled areas which linked it with Sarajevo (100 km2) Sarajevski canton: *was mostly under Bosnian Serbs control (800 km2) *while Bosnian Bosniaks controlled some southern suburbs and most of the city itself (477 km2) Brčko district was divided; *Bosnian Bosniaks controlled most of its southern parts (200 km2) *Bosnian Serbs its northern parts (193 km2) *While Bosnian Croats controlled the rest, part near Orašje municipality and two enclaves on southern parts of municipality (100 km2) Conclusion *Bosniaks got most of Sarajevo, and some important positions in eastern Bosnia/Herzegovina while they lost only a few locations on mount Ozren and in western Bosnia. Their percentage grew from 28% prior to Dayton to 30% and they greatly upheld quality of the gotten land. Large tracts of prewar Bosniak (and Bosnian Croat) inhabited lands remained under Bosnian Serb Control.Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/BiH_territory_posession_just_before_Dayton.png *Bosnian Croats gave most (4% of BiH territories) back to the Bosnian Serbs (9% of today's RS), and also retreated from Unsko-Sanski canton as well Donji Vakuf (in Central Bosnian canton) municipality afterward. Small enlargement of Posavina canton (Odžak and parts of Domaljevac municipality) hasn't changed the fact that after Dayton Bosnian Croats controlled just 21% of BiH (10640 km2) especially when compared to more than 25% prior to Dayton. It is important to note that one of the most important Bosnian Croat territories (Posavina with Brod, Šamac, Derventa and Modriča) was still left out of Bosnian Croat control. *Bosnian Serbs got large tracts of mountainous territories back (4% of Bosnian Croats and some small amounts from Bosniaks), but they were pressured to surrender Sarajevo and some vital Eastern Bosnian/Herzegovian positions. All in all by changing quantity to quality their percentage grew to 49% (48 if excluding the Brčko District, 24526 km2) from a little bit more than 46% prior to Dayton. Criticism According to University of Leipzig professor and Bosnian Academy of Sciences and Arts member Edin Šarčević, the current legal structure of the agreement doesn’t abide by the basic principles of international law and the secular concept of national citizenship, making the Bosnian territorial and political situation continually unstable and fractious since its implementation in 1995.Ethnic Segregation as a Desirable Constitutional Position?, Bosnian Institute, 09 December, 2008 See also *Washington Agreement of 1994 creating the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina References External links *The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina *Bosnia: a single country or an apple of discord?, Bosnian Institute, 12 May 2006 *Beyond Dayton: The Balkans and Euro-Atlantic Integration U.S. Institute of Peace Event, November 2005 (Audio & Transcripts) Category:Bosnian War Category:Greene County, Ohio Category:Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Category:Diplomatic conferences Category:High Representatives for Bosnia and Herzegovina Category:History of Dayton, Ohio Category:Clinton administration controversies Category:20th-century treaties Category:Treaties of Croatia Category:Treaties of Serbia Category:Treaties of Bosnia and Herzegovina ar:اتفاقية دايتون be:Дэйтонская дамова bs:Daytonski mirovni sporazum bg:Дейтънско споразумение ca:Acords de Dayton cs:Daytonská dohoda da:Daytonaftalen de:Abkommen von Dayton es:Acuerdos de Dayton eo:Interkonsento de Dayton fr:Accords de Dayton gl:Acordo de Dayton hr:Daytonski sporazum id:Perjanjian Dayton ia:Accordos de Dayton it:Accordo di Dayton he:הסכם דייטון nl:Verdrag van Dayton ja:デイトン合意 no:Daytonavtalen pl:Układ z Dayton pt:Acordo de Dayton ro:Acordul de la Dayton ru:Дейтонское соглашение sk:Daytonská mierová zmluva sl:Daytonski sporazum sr:Дејтонски мировни споразум fi:Daytonin rauhansopimus sv:Daytonavtalet tr:Dayton Anlaşması zh:岱頓協定